Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

1
I don't believe this has been filed, but is in the works regarding New York's essential ban on carry outside the home.

More details to follow, I suppose. It will be a good indication of the new court court composition's interest in defining the 2A and Heller.

NYSRPA v. Corlett
QUESTION PRESENTED
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding
citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home
without a license, and it denies licenses to every
citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she
has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of
Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second
Amendment protects “the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S.
570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago,
the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the
States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a
decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have
squarely divided on this critical question: whether the
Second Amendment allows the government to deprive
ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess
and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit
split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely
presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit
affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime
that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a
handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of
“proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body
of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.
The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical
constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens’
fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense.
The question presented is:
Whether the Second Amendment allows the
government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens
from carrying handguns outside the home for self defense.
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/s ... -final.pdf

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

3
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:45 am The demonstration of “proper cause” should be contested in any state that requires it.
We've been working on that in California for a long time... It will take SCOTUS to settle it here as the 9th doesn't give a shit about the 2A with absolute deference to the state. Every gun related win in the 9th has been overturned by the full panel.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

4
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn's next attempt to change NY law partnered with the NRA, couldn't have a more receptive audience at SCOTUS this time. Rogers vs Grewal is also awaiting cert at SCOTUS, it's on NJ concealed carry. And then we're still awaiting the en banc decision on Young vs Hawaii at the 9th Circuit. A 9th Circuit 3 judge panel gave the win to Young and there are 9 Trump judges now on the 9th Circuit and don't know if there are more not yet sworn in.
Last edited by highdesert on Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

5
highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:19 pm The New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn's next attempt to change NY law partnered with the NRA, could have a more receptive audience at SCOTUS this time. Rogers vs Grewal is also awaiting cert at SCOTUS, it's on NJ concealed carry. And then we're still awaiting the en banc decision on Young vs Hawaii at the 9th Circuit. A 9th Circuit 3 judge panel gave the win to Young and there are 9 Trump judges now on the 9th Circuit and don't know if there are more not yet sworn in.
Despite several "wins" in California recently, the State and the 9th have immediately crushed or derailed every one of them. Some of the cases are on-going, of course, but status remains almost entirely unchanged. Until and unless SCOTUS tightens up the definitions in Heller, I don't see any hope for CA, even with fuckhead's appointments. It's just too easy for the 9th to derail, delay, defer, deny, etc. And the state is always ready with a couple new laws with minor tweaks to start the process over again.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

6
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:45 am The demonstration of “proper cause” should be contested in any state that requires it.
I totally agree.

I also support the idea that the right may be denied based on criteria. This is how communities keep themselves stable and orderly, by setting limits.

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

7
CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:45 am The demonstration of “proper cause” should be contested in any state that requires it.
I totally agree.

I also support the idea that the right may be denied based on criteria. This is how communities keep themselves stable and orderly, by setting limits.

CDFingers
True. I’m not keen on having violent individuals armed if they have committed felonies and have not demonstrated change. True, time served should restore all rights, but a phasing in might be necessary in the most egregious cases. Denial of rights cannot be permanent. If they are perhaps, the sentence was too short.

Also demonstration of proficiency can be a requirement in my view to carry.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

8
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:20 pm
CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:45 am The demonstration of “proper cause” should be contested in any state that requires it.
I totally agree.

I also support the idea that the right may be denied based on criteria. This is how communities keep themselves stable and orderly, by setting limits.

CDFingers
True. I’m not keen on having violent individuals armed if they have committed felonies and have not demonstrated change. True, time served should restore all rights, but a phasing in might be necessary in the most egregious cases. Denial of rights cannot be permanent. If they are perhaps, the sentence was too short.

Also demonstration of proficiency can be a requirement in my view to carry.
Objective criteria is fine (background check, training, qualifications) provided it is reasonable and affordable. Subjective criteria (good cause, moral character) is BS and there are many examples of favoritism of some and denial of others. This is a right, and should be treated as such.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

9
featureless wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:29 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:20 pm
CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:45 am The demonstration of “proper cause” should be contested in any state that requires it.
I totally agree.

I also support the idea that the right may be denied based on criteria. This is how communities keep themselves stable and orderly, by setting limits.

CDFingers
True. I’m not keen on having violent individuals armed if they have committed felonies and have not demonstrated change. True, time served should restore all rights, but a phasing in might be necessary in the most egregious cases. Denial of rights cannot be permanent. If they are perhaps, the sentence was too short.

Also demonstration of proficiency can be a requirement in my view to carry.
Objective criteria is fine (background check, training, qualifications) provided it is reasonable and affordable. Subjective criteria (good cause, moral character) is BS and there are many examples of favoritism of some and denial of others. This is a right, and should be treated as such.
Agreed.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

10
Yeah, the requirement to demonstrate proficiency is a totally logical conclusion, like with a driver license. This is an objective element. The subjective elements always cause problems and should not figure in to laws.

eta: I came back to this response because I think it is incomplete. If we're going to promote the carrying of weapons, it means we have to educate our kids really early on so they don't freak out. I think The Four Rules should be inserted into curriculum starting in Kindergarten, that when a gun features somehow in the lessons, a seventy second presentation of The Four Rules should be inserted by law. Moreover, airgun marksmanship should figure too, at the appropriate age. Seniors in High School should shoot .22's in competitions.

Because familiarity breeds safe handling.

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

11
featureless wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:29 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:20 pm
CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:55 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:45 am The demonstration of “proper cause” should be contested in any state that requires it.
I totally agree.

I also support the idea that the right may be denied based on criteria. This is how communities keep themselves stable and orderly, by setting limits.

CDFingers
True. I’m not keen on having violent individuals armed if they have committed felonies and have not demonstrated change. True, time served should restore all rights, but a phasing in might be necessary in the most egregious cases. Denial of rights cannot be permanent. If they are perhaps, the sentence was too short.

Also demonstration of proficiency can be a requirement in my view to carry.
Objective criteria is fine (background check, training, qualifications) provided it is reasonable and affordable. Subjective criteria (good cause, moral character) is BS and there are many examples of favoritism of some and denial of others. This is a right, and should be treated as such.
If they adhere to the current pattern, SCOTUS will punt this case.

That "objective criteria" very much runs the risk of ending up being background checks enhanced by the states to the extent they are difficult or impossible for proles to pass, training the unwashed can neither afford nor pass, and God-knows-what-kind of contrived "qualifications." States/municipalities that already have made a concerted effort to restrict carry would be highly motivated to do absolutely anything to implement any barriers to carry possible.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

12
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:25 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:29 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:20 pm
CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:55 pm

I totally agree.

I also support the idea that the right may be denied based on criteria. This is how communities keep themselves stable and orderly, by setting limits.

CDFingers
True. I’m not keen on having violent individuals armed if they have committed felonies and have not demonstrated change. True, time served should restore all rights, but a phasing in might be necessary in the most egregious cases. Denial of rights cannot be permanent. If they are perhaps, the sentence was too short.

Also demonstration of proficiency can be a requirement in my view to carry.
Objective criteria is fine (background check, training, qualifications) provided it is reasonable and affordable. Subjective criteria (good cause, moral character) is BS and there are many examples of favoritism of some and denial of others. This is a right, and should be treated as such.
If they adhere to the current pattern, SCOTUS will punt this case.

That "objective criteria" very much runs the risk of ending up being background checks enhanced by the states to the extent they are difficult or impossible for proles to pass, training the unwashed can neither afford nor pass, and God-knows-what-kind of contrived "qualifications." States/municipalities that already have made a concerted effort to restrict carry would be highly motivated to do absolutely anything to implement any barriers to carry possible.
Also the cost can be made unbearable...

There’s potential, but pitfalls as well. Should be a free system anyway like voter registration cards and so on.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

13
Yup a "shall issue" process like most other states is what CA needs. If SCOTUS invalidates CA's current law, it would just tell the legislature to create an objective process for LTC with some general guidelines. The CA legislature would throw as many hurdles as possible into the process - background checks, multiple day training, issue the permit for a short duration like 3 yrs, make the license fees steep and require firearms insurance.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

14
For California, being "may issue" and having county mounties who don't want gunz being carried is a complete and total obvious infringement upon the RKBA. And that fuck Reagan made it illegal to carry openly. Republican hypocrisy is of such suck that sometimes I shoot arrows at raw eggs balanced on a traffic cone. Grrr.

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

15
IIRC, any police chief and sheriff in CA can issue concealed carry permits, police chiefs don't want the hassle so county sheriffs tend to run it all. LA County hands out very few, mostly judges and reserve police and deputies, the sheriff there might be anti-establishment but he hasn't changed CCW permits last I checked. My sheriff supports concealed carry and tries to attend the CC classes at the sheriff's academy to talk with each class.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

16
Correct, highdesert. I've had a CCW for 1.5 years now due to a change in sheriff. The new guy will issue for a reasonable good cause. Not quite shall issue, but a hell of a lot better than it's ever been.

Requirements were 16 hour class, qualify with each gun to be listed and background check (consistent with state). Additionally, 3 character reference letters. Permit is good for 2 years. Renewal requirement is another 8 hour class and qualification.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

17
featureless wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:47 pm Correct, highdesert. I've had a CCW for 1.5 years now due to a change in sheriff. The new guy will issue for a reasonable good cause. Not quite shall issue, but a hell of a lot better than it's ever been.

Requirements were 16 hour class, qualify with each gun to be listed and background check (consistent with state). Additionally, 3 character reference letters. Permit is good for 2 years. Renewal requirement is another 8 hour class and qualification.
How do you and the sheriff define "reasonable good cause"?

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

18
DispositionMatrix wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:57 am
featureless wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:47 pm Correct, highdesert. I've had a CCW for 1.5 years now due to a change in sheriff. The new guy will issue for a reasonable good cause. Not quite shall issue, but a hell of a lot better than it's ever been.

Requirements were 16 hour class, qualify with each gun to be listed and background check (consistent with state). Additionally, 3 character reference letters. Permit is good for 2 years. Renewal requirement is another 8 hour class and qualification.
How do you and the sheriff define "reasonable good cause"?
Good question. In my case, I used commuting, travel on remote roads with no cell coverage and no LEO presence and emergencies (of which the county has had plenty). He seems to want more than "self defense" to put in the file but will accept an articulated reason beyond "because." It is still subjective, but much better than we've had in decades.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

22
Hope they pick it up, but they might be reluctant giving a major firearms opinion right now. I'd like to see them impose "shall issue process" on all states. Order that states have to use objective information to approve or deny a firearms application, it cannot be subjective. We don't generally allow other laws or regulations to use subjective criteria, why should it be allowed with firearms.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

24
The court has 129 petitions scheduled for review at its next conference, to be held on Thursday. The court will likely be paying special attention to two of them, which are this week’s new relists. The court will be considering them for the second time.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms at home. Heller left unresolved the extent of Second Amendment protections outside the home. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, 20-843, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for New York licenses to carry firearms outside the home. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished [them] from the general public.” Nash, Koch and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the house for self-defense, and they say that the state abridges “a right that the Constitution guarantees to all ‘the people’” when carrying a firearm for self-defense is “deemed a crime unless one can preemptively convince a state official that she enjoys an especially good reason for wanting” to do so.

The Supreme Court hasn’t substantively addressed the lawfulness of firearm restrictions since 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. The court has come close (indeed, it came lose last year in a case brought by the same petitioner). And the court has relisted lots of firearms-regulation cases previously, including ones raising the same right-to-carry question here. But it hasn’t granted review. We’ll know soon whether this case will be different.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/an-i ... as-relief/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron